Zevachim 97

1 ‎[1] With regard to **the spit and the** metal **grill [*askela*],** one **purges them in hot water.**

‎[2] **GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a vessel from the beginning of the Festival, one may cook in it for the entire Festival without scouring and rinsing the vessel after every use and without being concerned that he is eating forbidden leftover meat. The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Tarfon?** The Gemara answers: It is **as the verse states** with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall roast and eat it in the place that the Lord your God shall choose; **and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents”** (Deuteronomy 16:7). Although one does not leave Jerusalem on the first morning of Passover, **the verse has rendered all of those** days over which one remains there equal to **one morning.**

‎[3] **Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami objects to this:** Can it be that all of the days of the Festival are considered a single day? **But is there no** prohibition against bringing **an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [*piggul*] during a pilgrimage Festival? And is there no** prohibition of ***notar*,** consuming sacrificial meat beyond its appointed time, **during a pilgrimage Festival?** Both these prohibitions are based on the premise that each offering may be eaten over a limited time far less than the duration of the entire Festival.

‎[4] **And if you would say: Indeed,** neither *piggul* nor *notar* apply during a Festival, that is difficult: **But it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: Rabbi Tarfon said** that an entire Festival is considered a single day **only** with regard to **this,** the *halakhot* of scouring and rinsing, **alone,** and not with regard to other *halakhot*, including *piggul* and *notar*. Evidently, his opinion is not based on the cited verse.

‎[5] The Gemara continues: **Rather,** one must explain that Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion accords **with that which Rav Naḥman says** citing **Rabba bar Avuh. As Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** Scouring and rinsing does not need to be done every day in order to avoid eating the taste of forbidden leftover meat, because while the vessels are used for repeatedly cooking various types of sacrificial meat, the meat of **each and every day becomes a purging agent for the other** food, that which is already absorbed in the vessel from the prior day. Therefore, only after the Festival, when the vessel is not being used, must the pot be scoured and rinsed.

‎[6] § The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say:** One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing **before** the end of the **period** during which **partaking** of the particular cooked offering is permitted. **What** is the mishna **saying? Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: One waits for** the copper vessel **so long as** it remains **the period of partaking, and then** he **performs scouring and rinsing on it.**

‎[7] **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Abba Yosei bar Abba: It is written** about a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked: **“It shall be scoured and rinsed** in water” (Leviticus 6:21); **and it is written** in the following verse: **“Every male among the priests may eat** it.” **How so,** i.e., what are the verses teaching through this juxtaposition? One **waits with it until** the end of **the period of partaking and then performs scouring and rinsing on it.**

‎[8] § The mishna teaches: **Scouring** is **like the scouring of a cup,** and **rinsing** is **like the rinsing of a cup;** and scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Scouring and rinsing** are both performed **with cold** water; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And the Rabbis say: Scouring** is performed **with hot** water, **and rinsing** is performed **with cold** water.

‎[9] **What is the reasoning of the Rabbis?** They hold that this *halakha* is **just as it is with** regard to **purging** the used vessels acquired from **gentiles,** for which purging the forbidden absorptions must be performed with hot water. **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi could have **said to you: I do not say** this statement about **purging,** which must certainly be performed with hot water. Rather, **when I say** my opinion, it is **with regard to** the mitzva of **scouring and rinsing, which is** performed **after purging.**

‎[10] **And the Rabbis** could reply: **If so,** that scouring and rinsing are both performed in the same manner, **let the verse write** the same verb to describe both processes, namely **either:** It shall be **scoured** and **scoured** in water, **or:** It shall be **rinsed** and **rinsed** in water. **What** is meant by the formula: **“It shall be scoured and rinsed** in water”? **Conclude from** the use of two verbs that **scouring** is performed **with hot** water, **and rinsing** is performed **with cold** water.

‎[11] **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi could reply: **If it were written: It shall be scoured** and **scoured,** or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed, **I would say** that the vessel must be **scoured two times, or** that it must be **rinsed two times. Therefore, it is written: “It shall be scoured and rinsed,” to tell you** that even if both are performed with cold water, there are two distinct actions: **Scouring** is **like the scouring of** the inside of **a cup,** and **rinsing** is **like the rinsing of** the outside of **a cup.**

‎[12] **MISHNA:** If one **cooked in** one vessel **sacrificial** meat **and non-sacred** meat, **or** the meat of **offerings of the most sacred order and** the meat of **offerings of lesser sanctity,** the status of the food depends upon the taste of the stringent substance. **If there is** enough **of** the more sacred meat **to impart flavor** to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then **the lenient** components of the mixtures must **be eaten in accordance with** the restrictions of **the stringent** components **therein,** insofar as who may partake of them, as well as the time when and the place where they may be eaten. **And** the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked **do not require scouring and rinsing, and** the lenient components **do not disqualify** pieces of meat **through contact.** With regard to these principles, the lenient components do not assume the status of the stringent components.

‎[13] In the case of a fit **wafer that touched** an unfit **wafer or a piece** of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit **piece** of sacrificial meat, **neither all the wafers nor all the pieces** of meat **are forbidden. No** part is **forbidden other than** that which is **in the place where** the item **absorbed** taste from the unfit wafers or pieces.

‎[14] **GEMARA:** According to the mishna, if the more sacred meat imparts flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient meat is to be treated in the same manner as the more sacred meat. Concurrently, their vessels do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. The Gemara asks: **What is** the mishna **saying?** Is this not inconsistent? The Gemara answers: The mishna must be understood otherwise: **If there is** enough **of** the more sacred meat **to impart flavor** to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then **the lenient** components of the mixtures must **be eaten in accordance with** the restrictions of **the stringent** components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do **require scouring and rinsing, and** the lenient components do **disqualify** pieces of meat **through contact.**

‎[15] The Gemara continues: **If** the more sacred meat **is not sufficient to impart flavor** to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then **the lenient** components of the mixtures **are not eaten in accordance with** the restrictions of **the stringent** components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked **do not require scouring and rinsing, and** the lenient components **do not disqualify** pieces of meat **through contact.**

‎[16] The Gemara asks: If the offerings of the most sacred order do not impart taste to the offerings of lesser sanctity, **granted,** the vessels **do not require** scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook **offerings of the most sacred order.** But isn’t it so that the vessels **should** nevertheless **require** scouring and rinsing by virtue of having been used for **offerings of lesser sanctity?**

‎[17] **Abaye said: What** is the meaning of: **Do not require, which** the mishna **states?** It means only that the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook **offerings of the most sacred order, but** they **do require** scouring and rinsing as vessels used to cook **offerings of lesser sanctity. Rava said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says:** Vessels used to cook **offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing** at all.

‎[18] The Gemara analyzes: **Granted,** according **to** the opinion of **Rava, this** explanation is consistent with **that which** the mishna **teaches:** If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, **or** the meat of **offerings of the most sacred order and** the meat of **offerings of lesser sanctity.** The mishna provides a second scenario in order to teach that vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. **But** according **to Abaye, why do I** need **two** cases to teach the single principle that a substance is nullified if its presence is insufficient to impart flavor?

‎[19] The Gemara answers: Even according to Abaye, both cases **are necessary,** in order to teach a *halakha* with regard to nullification. **As, had** the mishna **taught** only the case of **sacrificial** meat **and non-sacred** meat, **I would say** that **it is non-sacred** meat **that can nullify sacrificial** meat, **as** sacrificial meat is **not its type. But** with regard to **offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say:** The offerings of lesser sanctity do **not** nullify those other offerings, because they are of the same type.

‎[20] **And had** the mishna **taught** only the case of **offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say** that **it is sacrificial** meat **that is strong** enough **to nullify** other **sacrificial** meat; **but** with regard to **non-sacred** meat, **I would say:** It is **not** strong enough to nullify sacrificial meat. Therefore, it is **necessary** for the mishna to teach both cases.

‎[21] § The mishna teaches: In the case of a fit **wafer that reached** an unfit **wafer** or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces. In relation to this *halakha*, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: **“Whatever shall touch** its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20). One **might** have thought that this applies to all contact, **even** if the other piece **did not absorb** any flavor from the meat of the sin offering. To counter this, **the** same **verse states: “With its flesh [*bivsarah*]”** which can also be translated: In its flesh.

2 ‎[1] This teaches that this *halakha* does not apply **unless** the other food **absorbs** something of the sin offering **into its meat.**

‎[2] One **might** have thought that **if** the sin offering **touched part of a piece** of something that absorbed flavor from the sin offering, **the entire** piece **should become disqualified.** To counter this, **the verse states:** “Whatever **shall touch** its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20), to teach that only the section **that touches** the sin offering is **disqualified. How so?** What can be done with an item when a section of it is disqualified? **One slices off the section** of the piece **that absorbed** the disqualified matter. Additionally, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch **its flesh,” but** an item is **not** disqualified if it touches the sin offering’s **sinews, nor** its **bones, nor** its **horns, nor** its **hooves.**

‎[3] § The *baraita* continues to interpret the same verse. “Whatever shall touch its flesh **shall be sacred,”** teaches: Whatever touches it **becomes like it,** with regard to its status. **How so? If** the sin offering **is disqualified,** due to any disqualification, whatever touches it **becomes disqualified. And if it is fit,** whatever touches it must **be eaten in accordance with the stringent** regulations **that** apply **to** the sin offering. Therefore, a piece of meat that touches the meat of a sin offering may be eaten only in accordance with the terms of the consumption of a sin offering, e.g., it may be eaten only by male priests, and only for one day and one night.

‎[4] The Gemara asks: If sacrificial meat touched the meat of a disqualified sin offering, **why** should the sacrificial meat become forbidden? **Should** not the **positive mitzva** of eating the sacrificial meat **come and override** the **prohibition** against eating the disqualified substance that was absorbed in it? **Rava said: A positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that** relates **to the Temple.**

‎[5] Rav’s opinion relates to that which is taught in a *baraita*: **As it is stated** in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: **“Nor shall you break a bone of it”** (Exodus 12:46). **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow** are included in the prohibition. This statement is analyzed: If one means to break a bone in order to eat its marrow, **why** would that be prohibited? **Should** not the **positive mitzva** of eating the edible parts of the offering, including the marrow, **come and override** the **prohibition** of not breaking a bone of the Paschal offering? **Rather,** it must be that **a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that** relates **to the Temple.**

‎[6] **Rav Ashi said:** If sacrificial meat touches a disqualified sin offering, this is not simply a case of a positive mitzva in conflict with a prohibition. Because the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh **shall be sacred”** (Leviticus 6:20), treating the item as consecrated **is** itself **a positive mitzva.** Consequently, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition stand in opposition to eating that sacrificial meat, **and a positive mitzva does not override** both **a prohibition and a positive mitzva.**

‎[7] § With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.” The Gemara asks: **We found** a source teaching **that** with regard to **a sin offering,** whatever it touches **becomes sanctified through that which is absorbed** from the sin offering. **From where do we** derive that this is also the *halakha* concerning **the rest of the sacred** offerings? **Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:** It is stated: **“This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings”** (Leviticus 7:37). This verse connects all of the specified offerings, such that individual aspects of each offering are applicable to all of the offerings.

‎[8] The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states **“of the burnt offering”** to teach that all of the offerings are **like a burnt offering** in that **just as a burnt offering requires a utensil** in its preparation, **so too do all** animal offerings **require a utensil. What** is the **utensil? If we say** it is **a bowl,** a utensil used for collecting the blood, as were used in the burnt offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai, that cannot be correct, since the source for a vessel for collecting blood does not need to be derived from the use of one in a burnt offering. **With regard to communal peace offerings it is also written of them:** “And they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings…**And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins”** (Exodus 24:5–6).

‎[9] **Rather,** the term: Utensil, must be stated **of a knife,** as the slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **a burnt offering itself, from where do we** derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from **that which is written: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife** to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10); **and there,** Abraham was offering **a burnt offering, as it is written: “And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son”** (Genesis 22:13).

‎[10] The Gemara continues to expound the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 7:37). When the verse mentions **a meal offering,** it teaches that **just as a meal offering is eaten only by males of** the **priesthood** (see Leviticus 6:9–11), **so too are all** of the offerings mentioned in this verse **eaten only by males of** the **priesthood.** The Gemara asks: With regard to **what** offering **is it** that this *halakha* must be derived? **If** one suggests it is with regard to the **sin offering and** the **guilt offering,** this *halakha* **is explicitly written of them.** With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: **“Every male among the priests may eat of it”** (Leviticus 7:6).

‎[11] **And if** one suggests that the *halakha* must be derived with regard to **communal peace offerings,** i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on *Shavuot* together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this *halakha* **is derived from** the **amplification of the verse** that is stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: **“In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it”** (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a *baraita*: The verse **teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly** families.

‎[12] The Gemara explains: **It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.**

Commentaries

Version Info

Version: William Davidson Edition - English

License: CC-BY-NC